lost lake estate

Lost Lake Estates offering fewer amenities
One of five projects selected under the 1989 call for development proposals that would bring summer amenities to Whistler is being re-evaluated.
The applicant behind Lost Lake Estates, a project originally intended to create 15 single family estate lots on property at the north end of the White Gold subdivision, has recently proposed some changes to the amenity package the project would provide. The amenity package originally included four tennis courts, two baseball diamonds and a playing field, as well as upgrading of the sewer pump station if necessary for the project.
However, Nel den Duyf has always disputed the amenities and in November submitted a revised amenity package, which includes one playing/soccer field in Spruce Grove Park with two baseball diamonds superimposed on the field, plus a site for the sewer pump station. The rationale is that some of the recreational amenities required in 1989 have already been constructed.
den Duyf is also requesting another lot.
Doug O’Mara, who spoke on behalf of den Duyf, said there has always been some debate as to exactly what the amenity package would be. He also said if the amenity package is not acceptable the owner would create two large lots with no amenity package and no site for the pump station.
Councillor Hugh O’Reilly responded that he was on council in 1989 and there was never any question as to what the amenity package was. He added that there were few estate lots in Whistler at the time and this seemed like a good proposal.
"I think all the variables have changed today," O’Reilly said.
Councillor Max Kirkpatrick said he couldn’t see why the amenity package would decrease in six years, and though it should double.
Councillor Thelma Johnstone noted that in 1989 Whistler was looking for summer amenities.
"I think the value of the amenity package could be re-evaluated to relate to our needs today," she said.
Mayor Ted Nebbeling noted that the municipality has discouraged den Duyf from going ahead with development previously, preferring to see what the municipality’s needs would be.
Johnstone offered that the value of any amenities should be in 1989 dollars because development was discouraged by the municipality.
"The developer knows what’s reasonable for him to offer, he can bring that to staff," O’Reilly concluded.